Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2
Mar 17, 2013 12:00am EDT
think going to be a big struggle in the future. i know that the obama administration they are for investing in the green economy but they are also for all of the above including especially cheap natural gas through fracking and there is no way -- go ahead got another book if you will let me come back, let me summarize it. there is no way you come close to meeting the commission reduction target through greenhouse gas emission targets. if we do anything like maintaining our existing level of consumption of coal, oil and natural gas. no way you come close. if you take the climate scientists and very seriously which i do, basically we have to cut consumption of all three, coal, oil and natural gas by 50% roughly, 50 or 40% within 20 years. how can we build up this fracking industry? forget about the fact that it's contaminating the water. and it's creating volcanoes. let's just put those aside. just on the climate effect, you just can't do it. therefore the green economy is an imperative and an environmental imperative and it so happens it's good for jobs. >> i have to a
Mar 17, 2013 1:40pm EDT
tests were very rigorous. in fact be assumed obama administration's recovery program would fail, that it would not only fail to make things far worse, which is curious given the entity that created those stress test is a treasury department given the task of promoting and carrying out the recovery program. it's not the writer of the test i questioned, but rather their necessity. peter seems to accept the assumption they were needed in or to restore investor confidence in banks. peter is correct the test or something of a gamble to secretary geithner. but perhaps an unnecessary one. investors were already beginning to return to banks long before the results of the stress tests were reported. i do agree with the assessment of the outcome peter makes. it exposed alarmism of expert for what it was. another important conclusion that peter elaborates as they show how far off base mark to market accounting is for evaluating a set that banks tend to hold. banks hold their assets for the cash flow, not for firesale value in the cash flow of assets performed far better than the mark to ma
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2